The Editor's Back Fence

A letter to the Zoning Adjustments Board regarding its special hearing tomorrow evening on the proposed 18-story development at 2211 Harold Way (behind the landmark Shattuck Hotel):

Dear Commissioners,

Your analysis of what might constitute significant community benefits for the project proposed for 2211 Harold Way continues to be woefully inadequate.

I know this because I stayed to the bitter end of your last meeting, and the commissioners were in complete disarray as to what dollar amount was being discussed, how it is supposed to be calculated, and how much purview the Zoning Adjustment Board has over how any benefits are to be allocated.

Please finish this conversation before approving any permits.  

There’s no way you can make a decision about the project at your next meeting without first getting a clear statement together about the methodology you’re following, pursuant to the code specification that the limited number of buildings to be granted extra-height variances must provide significant community benefits in return for their marginal excess profits. 

Commissioner Pinkston in particular said that she’d been “told” that the council had mandated—not just suggested, but *mandated*—that this particular project would be allowed to substitute a minimal cash payment for any other form of benefits. 

Who told her that, and why? What’s so special about this one? You need to clarify this. 

What did the council pass? An “ordinance”? A “resolution”? A “suggestion”? This must be clearly articulated before going forward, or you’ll open the ZAB up to charges of undue influence. 

And the rest of the commissioners had very different ideas about how any benefits, in whatever amount, should be allocated, with no obvious standard for making the decision. 

Do you believe that this particular applicant is entitled to a bargain basement price for his extra stories, despite the obvious economic loss to the city because it displaces thriving cultural enterprises, notably the theaters? 

Some commissioners seemed to be confused about whether repairing damage to such enterprises done by the project should be considered a benefit or just a mitigation. This needs to be settled before moving forward. 

If you don’t first agree on a fair and transparent method for making this decision, you’ll be opening the city up to lawsuits galore from subsequent applicants who will want the same deal. And that would not be only for the five buildings mentioned in the plan, but others as well, if the decision methodology can be shown to be inequitable. 

Please get this situation cleaned up before granting permits. Take the time to make your chosen method public before you apply it, so interested citizens (and subsequent potential applicants as well) have adequate opportunity to comment on whether they think it’s fair.